| Content
Feedback |
'Secularism', Colonial Hegemony and Hindu
'Fanaticism' January 5, 2005, 2:12 am Sulekha.com Arjun
Bhagat Published
on Friday, January 31, 2003 http://news.hinduworld.com/click_frameset.php? Consider
the following examples of double standards against India and
its heritage: In
the late '80s and early '90s, Japan was crushing the United States
in business and trade. We saw a plethora of 'voluntary'
quotas being Today,
with competitive advantage guaranteeing the complete annihilation of the
Western world's textile industry, there are similar
'voluntary' restrictions on textile exports from developing countries
such as India, Thailand, Mauritius etc. Steel dumping charges by the
United States are being used as coercive tools to limit the supply of
competitive product from countries as diverse as Brazil, South Korea,
India and Russia. When
ISKON a relative anomaly within the fold of Hinduism, in that it
actively proselytized and converted started to successfully propagate
and grow rapidly in the '70s, it quickly got labeled as a 'cult'. In the
West, it was vilified, discredited and attacked at virtually all levels;
the State, legal, popular media (print, TV, movies) and at the level of
ordinary individual discourse. What
all these examples illustrate is a very fundamental truth of human
and therefore societal nature. If human beings feel that their way of
life is truly being threatened, NO MATTER WHAT THE RULES AND LAWS STATE
they will react strongly to get rid of that perceived threat. Yet, when
Hindus in India a group that has been awfully maligned, their traditions
and spiritual practices denigrated, their objects of devotion heaped
scorn upon resist what they see as an Abrahamic onslaught of
proselytization, they are branded as xenophobic fanatics. Now,
if one were to use the above observation to explain the phenomenon
of 'Hindu fanaticism' as defined and articulated by the Indian and
Western media, one would get some but only a partial understanding of
the issue. Because there is a far more profound explanation for this
phenomenon. To understand the true significance of the issue, one needs
to look at not just 'Hindu fanaticism' but equally, the vitriolic
attacks Hindutvaadis face at the hands of the media, both the Indian
secular as well as the Western. Why,
in a world where proselytizing is banned by virtually every Islamic
country, where Hindus have been virtually 'cleansed' out of Pakistan,
Bangladesh and the Kashmir valley, are Hindutvaadis singularly such a
key target of the world press? Why, in a world where the Pope the
official head of the largest Christian denomination of the world talks
about "harvesting Indian souls" is it that there is such a
concerted effort by the popular media worldwide to demonize aggressive
Hindus and only Hindus as 'fundamentalists'? That
the effort by the media to taint the emerging 'vocal' and 'public'
Hindu as a fanatic is a concerted one hits one smack in the face every
time one reads anything on this issue. By the choice of words (Gujarat 'pogroms')[iii],
by the selective focus on victims (Dalits, Muslims, missionaries, but
never a Kashmiri pandit or Hindu worshipper); by the number and
prominence of articles focused on 'Hindu fanaticism' (front page news)
versus 'other fanaticism' ('40 pilgrims gunned down" blurb half way
down on page 26 of your local newspaper). It
is only when we understand that the creators, definers and propagators
of the 'rabid Hindu fanatic' image worldwide the secular intelligentsia
and media is but the other face of the same coin, will we understand the
true dimension of the battle being waged. For
a battle it is. A battle at the most fundamental level of man's worldview
on human rights and religious freedom. IN ITS ESSENCE, THE BATTLE IS
BETWEEN THE RELATIVE MORALITY VERSUS IMMORALITY ASSOCIATED WITH
RELIGIOUS CONVERSIONS. On one side, we have the Abrahamic juggernaut,
draped in a pristine white secular garb, using as its awesome cudgel the
worldwide media; on the other, we have the dharmic perspective that
various indigenous movements claim to represent, but that are savvy
neither in the projection of image in worldwide media nor savvy enough
to compete in the academic marketplace where scholarship is bought and
sold under the garb of endowments and other means of power projection. It
is a skewed playing field. The winner is pre-determined.No wonder then,
what should have been a true intellectual battle of two
moral but completely incompatible worldviews has become a rout. Leave
alone those that have grown up in Abrahamic cultures, even the average
open minded Indian intellectual, though having grown up in a dharmic
culture, sees the battle as between the secular good versus evil Hindu
fanaticism. A
good way to contextualize this battle is to look at the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights[iv] which was first adopted by the U.N in 1948 and is to
this day a standard bearer of what should constitute genuine humanistic
principles. Though the document covers virtually every facet of
individual and societal space economic, cultural, religious, physical,
intellectual and political for purposes of this discussion, we will
focus on only a few sentences: Article 2: Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Article
12: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his
privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour
and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law
against such interference or attacks. Article
18: Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and
religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief,
and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or
private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice,
worship and observance. The
Christian worldview, with its predilection to proselytize and convert
others into its fold has chosen to focus on only one element amongst all
those present in the three articles listed above; namely the freedom to
change one's religion or belief and made that the cornerstone of their
'religious freedom index'. In other words, those cultures and societies
that allow active proselytizing and conversion are considered more
'religiously tolerant' and open societies. With
their fundamental belief in the absolute uniqueness of Christ as compared
to the rest of us mortals and sinners, and thus the path to salvation, a
BELIEVING Christian has NO CHOICE but to consider all
other spiritual paths and
religions as being confused at best and 1.
The most 'benign' group of Christians would be the 'modern, enlightened'
group. People in this group would probably never even consider directly
proselytizing to a 'non-believer' themselves. However, by virtue of
their numbers and wealth, they are a big source of funds, and hence the
engine that empowers the next two groups. 2.
The second group consists of the 'legitimate' proselytizers. Using funds
received from the first group, these people use standard business
practices in order to increase Christianity's market share. That is
their overriding goal and singular focus. Towards that end, they carry
out fund-raisers, competitor analysis, marketing and advertising, create
incentive schemes, build hierarchical organizations, look at return on
investment etc. In this category, you can lump all of the mainstream
missionaries Catholic, Protestant, Evangelical and churches. From the
Pope down to the local Indian missionary working in a Tripura or a
Kerala, they use words like 'planting' (ministries/churches) and
'harvesting' (Souls). The more forthright ones are openly religious
while some of the more insidious ones pose as secular humanists.
However, their agenda of bringing more souls into the Christian fold is
clear and focused.[v] 3.
The last group, consisting of Christian fundamentalists see the whole
believer / non-believer schism in far starker terms. Their language is
liberally sprinkled with words such as pagan, devil worshippers,
idolaters etc. Interestingly, if their language were used in terms of
differentiating peoples or races rather than religion, it would clearly
qualify as hate speech, with potential societal, political as well as
legal censure![vi] Looking
at what both group 2 and 3 say, do and preach, and juxtaposing that
against the very humanist principles outlined in the above three
articles from the Charter of Human Rights, it is clear that they are in
violation of both the spirit as well as the letter of all three
articles, when dealing with 'pagans' such as us Hindus. Yet, they carry
the halo of religious enlightenment within the world's 'secular' media. To
summarize: The western-secular and therefore dominant worldview would
have us believe that the most enlightened form of religious tolerance
and freedom a society can create is one where everyone is freely
available for conversion. How this conversion occurs, what methods are
used (assuming it does not entail coercion; subterfuge and inducements
are acceptable) or the consequences to the culture and society are all
of little consequence. On
the positive side, their worldview allows for the least restraint on
free speech, and the theoretical benefits that accrue from allowing
contesting ideas to battle each other in the marketplace of the
individual's mind. However, such an advantage can only be had if ALL the
competing players are interested and willing players in an arena where
aggression and subterfuge is rewarded, and the law of the jungle which
favors the strong is considered moral and just. However,
there is an opposing dharmic worldview, which, in its essence is
far more pluralistic, non-dogmatic and accepting of different points of
view. The spiritual traditions of Buddhism, Sikhism, Jainism and
Hinduism see little good or morality in uprooting people from their own
traditions and culture and replanting them in to an alien one. For, when
all the different paths lead to the same spiritual goal, what possible
purpose can be served by severing somebody from his or her own roots? The
essence of this dharmic perspective is probably best captured in the
Bhagavad Gita, 4:24 4:32. Here Lord Krishna in essence explains to
Arjuna that though there are many different methodologies as well as
objects of worship (only some of which are listed) they all lead to the
same goal of enlightenment.[vii] As
in so many other instances, this dharmic principle of religious enlightenment
is taken to its loftiest heights by none other than Mahatma Gandhi.
"I came to the conclusion long ago ... that all religions were true
and also that all had some error in them, and that whilst I hold by my
own, I should hold others as dear as Hinduism. So we can only pray, if
we are Hindus, not that a Christian should become a Hindu ... But our
innermost prayer should be that a Hindu should be a better Hindu, a
Muslim a better Muslim, a Christian a better Christian."[viii] Here
then, is the dharmic perspective on what constitutes a religiously
enlightened society. Compare that to the Christian perspective. Now, lay
them both side by side with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
and decide for yourself which of the two worldviews occupies the higher
moral, spiritual and dharmic plane. An
important point to make is the distinction between A) accepting the
teachings of Jesus, and B) converting to Christianity. A does not
require leaving one's tradition by birth, especially since Hinduism does
not forbid respect for Jesus as Avatar or guru or as a great rishi.
Hence, one could be a proud Hindu who also respects and believes in the
teachings of Jesus. However, B calls for "conversion away
from" one's tradition. It means that one's ancestors were wrong,
one's neighbors and relatives who are unconverted are condemned and
inferior. B is divisive and exclusive. The problem from Hinduism's
perspective is not accepting Jesus' teachings but the demand that there
can be only one true religion, that this religion must require the
abandonment of all other faiths. In Japan, in a survey about people's
faiths, over 75% of the population listed having more than one religion
at the same time, Buddhism and Shinto-ism being the most common
combination. There are many Hindu-Sikhs, many Hindu-Buddhists, many
Hindu-Sufis. In fact, Hinduism itself could be thought of as Vaishnavism,
Shaivism, Tantra, Shakta (Goddess) and other traditions, and that many
Hindus have multiple traditions that they are involved in
simultaneously. The Abrahamic problem is the demand of one-religion
only. This is anti-freedom because it reduces the freedom of a person to
explore many spiritual paths and to combine them. Over
the last two hundred years, the U.S. has done an outstanding job of
leading the world in the area of racism and race relations. It has led
the world from an era when espousing theories of races being at
different stages of evolution was considered legitimate and
acceptable[ix] to a point where any kind of denigration of a particular
race invites swift opprobrium and retribution. For this, humanity in
general, but 'minorities' such as ourselves in particular should be
grateful to the Americans. I do believe the world would have been a far
more hostile place if the center of gravity had remained in Europe, or
shifted to Japan for instance. However,
what we see today is a 'religionism' not that different from the
racism of fifty years ago. For obvious reasons, this is not a battle
that we can expect America, steeped in its Judeo-Christian culture, to
fight. This is a battle that India, the cradle as well as the last
remaining significant bastion of dharmic civilization in the world,
needs to fight. It is India's opportunity to do for the world in
religion what America did for races. As a society which has a dharmic
based majority, it needs to work on creating laws and codes of conduct
that are enlightened but disallows the denigration of others' religions
and spiritual traditions. It needs to use the UN charter as the basis
for creating its legal framework. To do this effectively, it needs to
take the moral and intellectual high ground, which is its rightful
place. If
freedom of speech no longer provides protection to racial hate mongers
in the U.S.; if in that bastion of economic freedom that is America, a
private landlord can go to jail for discriminating against potential
tenants based on race, why is it so difficult for India to create a
dharmic based set of laws that ban 'religionism'? For, if India can get
it right, I foresee such an enlightened perspective on religious freedom
spreading rapidly across the Far East, from Thailand to Japan. After
all, these cultures still have the dharmic DNA embedded in their
cultural genes. There
is no reason why, fifty years hence, the current denigration of other
religions by Christians (or Muslims for that matter) is not frowned upon
by the world the way denigrating other races is frowned upon today. The
question is, do the torchbearers of dharma in India have the
intellectual prowess and media skills required to succeed? For
humanity's sake, I fervently hope so. References: [i]This
is not considered a problem because it is accepted as a fact about
Islam, and not criticized out of respect for it. (http://www.sulekha.com/column.asp?cid=239156)
'attack' on American academics by both Indians as well as American
academicians. This is a man whose only 'weapons' are his pen and his
intellect. http://www.harvestmission.org/ http://www.bethelthehouseofgod.net/africaandindia.html http://www.isidelhi.org/
(this one does a fine job of projecting itself as a secular outfit) http://www.harvest-india.org/Preaching.htm http://www.geocities.com/mariaandrick/burdenforsouls.htm
(the "White man's burden" updated for the 21st century?) "Demonstrating
social concern, for example for scheduled castes and tribes or other
`untouchables' of the Hindu community (lepers, prostitutes etc.) was
another proposed technique. "Hinduism
and many of the occult activities that come out of the Orient
are inspired by demons and demon worship...There's this concept that all
religions are the same and all are good. That is not true. The worship
of the Devil is not good." Pat Robertson's 700 Club, 9-11-89: "They
have thousands and thousands of earth stations picking up satellites.
It's a window of opportunity [for Christian TV programs]. Of all of
India's problems, one stands out from the rest. That problem is idol
worship. It is said there are hundreds of millions of Hindu deities. All
this has put a nation in bondage to spiritual forces that have deceived
many for thousands of years." Pat Robertson: March 23rd, 1995 broadcast of "The 700 Club." An
interesting exercise is to read Martin Luther King's words, as well as
the definition of Racism, and change their context from RACE to RELIGION
and then contextualize the quotes above. RACISM
- prejudice, apartheid, anti-Semitism, sexism, colonialism, homophobia,
ageism, discrimination against differently abled, stereotypes... "Racism is a philosophy based on a contempt for life. It is the arrogant assertion that one race is the center of value and object of devotion, before which other races must kneel in submission. It is the absurd dogma that one race is responsible for all the progress of history and alone can assure the progress of the future. Racism is total estrangement. It separates not only bodies, but minds and spirits. Inevitably it descends to inflicting spiritual and physical homicide upon the out-group." *Source:
"Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community?" by Dr. Martin Luther
King, Jr. Boston: Beacon Press, 1967. [vii]Chapter
4, Verse 24. A
person who is fully absorbed in Brahman is sure to attain the spiritual
kingdom because of his full contribution to spiritual activities, in
which the consummation is absolute and that which is offered is of the
same spiritual nature. Some
yogis perfectly worship the devas by offering different sacrifices
to them, and some of them offer sacrifices in the fire of the Supreme
Brahman. Some
of them sacrifice the hearing process and the senses in the fire of
the controlled mind, and others sacrifice the objects of the senses,
such as sound, in the fire of sacrifice. Chapter
4, Verse 27. Those
who are interested in self-realization, in terms of mind and sense
control, offer the functions of all the senses, as well as the vital
force [breath], as oblations into the fire of the controlled mind. There
are others who, enlightened by sacrificing their material possessions
in severe austerities, take strict vows and practice the yoga of
eightfold mysticism, and others study the Vedas for the advancement of
transcendental knowledge. And
there are even others who are inclined to the process of breath restraint
to remain in trance, and they practice stopping the movement of the
outgoing breath into the incoming, and incoming breath into the
outgoing, and thus at last remain in trance, stopping all breathing. Some
of them, curtailing the eating process, offer the outgoing breath into
itself, as a sacrifice. All
these performers who know the meaning of sacrifice become cleansed of
sinful reaction, and, having tasted the nectar of the remnants of such
sacrifice, they go to the supreme eternal atmosphere. O
best of the Kuru dynasty, without sacrifice one can never live happily
on this planet or in this life: what then of the next? All
these different types of sacrifice are approved by the Vedas, and all
of them are born of different types of work. Knowing them as such, you
will become liberated.
|
